Minutes from December 8, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting

LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
December 8, 1986
Attendance:
Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
Fred LaBar, USFS
Clark Ostergaard, USFS
Mark Shaw, USFS
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
Duncan Silver, FHWA
John Neil, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
Jim Naegle, UDOT
Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club
Jack Spence, Sierra Club
Item I - Review of Minutes
Stan Nuffer conducted a revi~w of the minutes of the previ­ous
meeting. Items that were not included in the minutes
and should have been were:
Item 5. The Forest Service is going to provide
the team members with a copy of the _parking and
recreation master plan.
Item 6. The first time "LOS" is used, it should'
be proceeded by Level of _ Service.
Item 6. The last sentence was changed to more
accurately reflect the fact that much of the Canyon
will not accommodate a climbing lane.
In addition to the corrections, Duncan Silver clarified his
request .for a status report on the Technical Memorandums.
What he had in mind was a "scorecard" which simply listed
the subject and status (draft, received, approved, final). ­Jack
Spence also asked for some clarification from the
Forest Service on their desire to reduce parking in some
areas of the Canyon. Fred LaBar indicated that there was a
need to maintain adequate parking for fishing and other
recreational purposes, but some types of parking, (hunters
for example) need to be better controlled.
Item 2 - Discussion of Issues and Concerns
Copies of written comments received to date were distributed
as were copies of the transcripts of the two public meetings.
Cliff Forsgren explained the way the comments are being tabu­lated.
There is some difficulty in tabulating the verbal
1
comments received at the public meetings because not all
speakers identified themselves. It is possible that some
persons, who were not identified, spoke up at more than one
time and those views were tabulated on each occasion. An­other
difficulty is the best way to handle questions from
people who did not express a view. The 1.0. Team members
were asked to review the transcripts and tabulations and
make any suggestions they might have.
Item 3 - Discussion of Schedule for Completion of the Scoping
Process
Stan Nuffer explained that the scoping requirements are dif­ferent
for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) than for
an Environmental Assessment (EA). There is a lengthy noti­fication
process for an EIS. Stan suggested that, if the
I.D. Team felt that an EIS would ultimately be required, the
EIS scoping process should be started.
Duncan Silver did not feel that there was enough environ­mental
information available to make any kind of preliminary
determination on the need for an EIS. Clark Ostergaard in­dicated
that he would like to know if there was critical
spawning habitat in the River that might be impacted by some
alternatives. Jack Spence pointed out that in maintaining
the Forest Service visual standards, the· improvements that
were possible may not be significant enough to require an
EIS. After considerable discussion it was decided that the
environmental inventories describing
the affected environment need to be reviewed in a manner
similar to the previous, techn~cal ,~~morandums. ~fter there
memorandums have been reviewed, a determination of the
appropriate scoping process could be made.
During the discussion, Duncan Silver also indicated that
FHWA would probably review the final document (EA of EIS) as
if it were as EIS. Jim Naegle said that information would
be helpful to UDOT because it appeared that there would be a
lengthy review period regardless of the type of final report.
Item 4 - Update of Final Visual Classification
Clark Ostergaard presented some updated information on visual
classifications in the Canyon. He brought his latest mapping
effort that showed the visual classifications between Right
Fork and Ricks Springs. Duncan Silver asked if the visual
retention criteria allowed for "upgrades" in one area to
offset "downgrades" in another. For example, if as a result
of the roadway improvements, a portion of road that had a
classification of 2 was raised to 3, would it be possible at
another location to allow a 5 before construction to be a 4
after. Clark was not sure how to address that and would
have an answer for the next meeting.
2
Item 5 - Layouts for Component Widening and Alignment Improv.e­ment
from Ricks Springs to Garden City
Stan Nuffer reviewed the plan and profile of the widening
and alignment improvement component from Ricks Springs to
Garden City. Much of this component has a climbing lane.
Lynn Zollinger said that if a climbing lane were to be con­structed,
intersections would also require special
attention.
NOTE: Prior to the beginning of the meeting John Ellsworth
from Utah State University made a presentation of a computer
simulation technique for depicting topographic modifications.
SLC-STN/03
3

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
December 8, 1986
Attendance:
Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
Fred LaBar, USFS
Clark Ostergaard, USFS
Mark Shaw, USFS
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
Duncan Silver, FHWA
John Neil, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
Jim Naegle, UDOT
Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club
Jack Spence, Sierra Club
Item I - Review of Minutes
Stan Nuffer conducted a revi~w of the minutes of the previ­ous
meeting. Items that were not included in the minutes
and should have been were:
Item 5. The Forest Service is going to provide
the team members with a copy of the _parking and
recreation master plan.
Item 6. The first time "LOS" is used, it should'
be proceeded by Level of _ Service.
Item 6. The last sentence was changed to more
accurately reflect the fact that much of the Canyon
will not accommodate a climbing lane.
In addition to the corrections, Duncan Silver clarified his
request .for a status report on the Technical Memorandums.
What he had in mind was a "scorecard" which simply listed
the subject and status (draft, received, approved, final). ­Jack
Spence also asked for some clarification from the
Forest Service on their desire to reduce parking in some
areas of the Canyon. Fred LaBar indicated that there was a
need to maintain adequate parking for fishing and other
recreational purposes, but some types of parking, (hunters
for example) need to be better controlled.
Item 2 - Discussion of Issues and Concerns
Copies of written comments received to date were distributed
as were copies of the transcripts of the two public meetings.
Cliff Forsgren explained the way the comments are being tabu­lated.
There is some difficulty in tabulating the verbal
1
comments received at the public meetings because not all
speakers identified themselves. It is possible that some
persons, who were not identified, spoke up at more than one
time and those views were tabulated on each occasion. An­other
difficulty is the best way to handle questions from
people who did not express a view. The 1.0. Team members
were asked to review the transcripts and tabulations and
make any suggestions they might have.
Item 3 - Discussion of Schedule for Completion of the Scoping
Process
Stan Nuffer explained that the scoping requirements are dif­ferent
for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) than for
an Environmental Assessment (EA). There is a lengthy noti­fication
process for an EIS. Stan suggested that, if the
I.D. Team felt that an EIS would ultimately be required, the
EIS scoping process should be started.
Duncan Silver did not feel that there was enough environ­mental
information available to make any kind of preliminary
determination on the need for an EIS. Clark Ostergaard in­dicated
that he would like to know if there was critical
spawning habitat in the River that might be impacted by some
alternatives. Jack Spence pointed out that in maintaining
the Forest Service visual standards, the· improvements that
were possible may not be significant enough to require an
EIS. After considerable discussion it was decided that the
environmental inventories describing
the affected environment need to be reviewed in a manner
similar to the previous, techn~cal ,~~morandums. ~fter there
memorandums have been reviewed, a determination of the
appropriate scoping process could be made.
During the discussion, Duncan Silver also indicated that
FHWA would probably review the final document (EA of EIS) as
if it were as EIS. Jim Naegle said that information would
be helpful to UDOT because it appeared that there would be a
lengthy review period regardless of the type of final report.
Item 4 - Update of Final Visual Classification
Clark Ostergaard presented some updated information on visual
classifications in the Canyon. He brought his latest mapping
effort that showed the visual classifications between Right
Fork and Ricks Springs. Duncan Silver asked if the visual
retention criteria allowed for "upgrades" in one area to
offset "downgrades" in another. For example, if as a result
of the roadway improvements, a portion of road that had a
classification of 2 was raised to 3, would it be possible at
another location to allow a 5 before construction to be a 4
after. Clark was not sure how to address that and would
have an answer for the next meeting.
2
Item 5 - Layouts for Component Widening and Alignment Improv.e­ment
from Ricks Springs to Garden City
Stan Nuffer reviewed the plan and profile of the widening
and alignment improvement component from Ricks Springs to
Garden City. Much of this component has a climbing lane.
Lynn Zollinger said that if a climbing lane were to be con­structed,
intersections would also require special
attention.
NOTE: Prior to the beginning of the meeting John Ellsworth
from Utah State University made a presentation of a computer
simulation technique for depicting topographic modifications.
SLC-STN/03
3